Hacker News Reader

Comment by setr | Hacker News Reader

Well, it still did its job of increasing cost of external cured ham… just by not as much of an increase, or as directly, as they intended

View on HN

Also an egregious waste of carbon emissions in the era of climate change though.

If you are a major oil exporter, is that a bug or a feature?

https://www.npd.no/en/

We should just put a price on carbon directly instead of optimizing lots of other rules to also take emissions into account. Fuel is just too cheap.

Too cheap for who?

There are carbon taxes being implemented and on the whole i think they are good. But combined with the current spike in energy prices, they are hammering some people.

Give the poor money, if you care about them. That's more efficient than making the tax system more complicated.

Too cheap for the climate, i.e. too cheap for anybody under 40. A tax-and-rebate system can help poor people without hampering the effect of a high carbon price.

Or just get rid of silly nonsense like this rule so people are not incentivised to drive 6000km by the government.

There are about a billion rules. Do you volunteer to assess each one's impact on the climate and balance it against other economic effects of the rule, or do you simply attach the proper price to carbon and let the market figure it out?

I would remove the rules that aren't related to quality and safety and let the market figure it out first. Making things better for people to effect change is a better starting point than making things worse.

Everything should have a pollution tax of the amount it costs to clean up the pollution it creates, then use the money to clean it up

We now call this "proof of work".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com